Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Oh sorry, I assumed HHH-10707 not affecting me is implied ;P No I am talking about the fix for HHH-9329 that I proposed. Am 23.09.2016 um 19:36 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > Well again we were just talking about HHH-10707 and you asked "will it > be integrated upstream"... > > I can tell by your

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Well again we were just talking about HHH-10707 and you asked "will it be integrated upstream"... I can tell by your reaction that you really were asking whether *your* change would be integrated upstream, but that was not obviously from your email :) On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:32 PM Christian

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Is the fix I proposed in my PR(https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/1561) non-compatible? Did I miss discussion about that somewhere or didn't you have time to review that yet? Am 23.09.2016 um 18:50 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > Depends on the "fix" we all agree on. Mainly whether that

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Depends on the "fix" we all agree on. Mainly whether that leads to any non-compatible SPI changes. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM Christian Beikov < christian.bei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ahh okay, I see. Sorry, I didn't fully read my previous mail and forgot I > asked that question ^^ > Well

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Ahh okay, I see. Sorry, I didn't fully read my previous mail and forgot I asked that question ^^ Well then I'll try upgrading to 5.2 and hope for the best :) So are you considering merging that to 5.2 then? Am 23.09.2016 um 18:36 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > Nope. You asked: > > Are the problems

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Nope. You asked: Are the problems with Hibernate 5.1+ and Infinispan fixed yet? I didn't consider upgrading yet because I read of some issues. Now its possibly I misread your reference to HIbernate+Infinispan problems to mean the only ones I know of. hence the HHH-10707 reference. If you meant

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Wrong thread? Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > There are some conceptual mismatch problem that IMO stem from the L2C > SPI. We are discussing that all as part of > https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10707 > > Whether that affects you really depends how you configure

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

There are some conceptual mismatch problem that IMO stem from the L2C SPI. We are discussing that all as part of https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10707 Whether that affects you really depends how you configure caching. If you try to reuse regions for different types of data (entity,

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Well to be fair, I already reported that this "regression" was introduced in 4.2.8 by placing the ON predicate on the target table join instead of the collection table join as was done before in 4.2.7.SP1. I am not using 4.x anymore but since Wildfly ships with Hibernate 5.0, I suppose that

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Thanks, I know that it's a beauty ^^ Hope this can get into all 5.x branches? Regards, Christian Am 20.09.2016 um 23:05 schrieb Steve Ebersole: > I took a quick look. I'd prefer to see better solution as we migrate > to SQM; but for 5.x, given how Hibernate generates SQL there, I am not > sure

Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

I took a quick look. I'd prefer to see better solution as we migrate to SQM; but for 5.x, given how Hibernate generates SQL there, I am not sure how else you would possibly do this On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:54 PM Vlad Mihalcea wrote: > Thanks, > > I'm going to review

[hibernate-dev] HHH-9329

Hey again, I implemented the approach that I proposed in the issue and a test in https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/pull/1561 It detects left joins with join tables that use the target table alias. The join table is replaced with a subquery and the WITH clause is moved to the join of